Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)

Citation: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Parent Document: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10513133/freccia-v-freccia/ ↗

Full Text

2,400 chars

(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
          TD Bank, N.A. v. Salce, 175 Conn. App. 757, 766–67,
          169 A.3d 317 (2017).
             In this appeal, the defendants argue, as they did
          before the trial court, that, by seeking possession of
          the subject property, the plaintiff is denying them bene-
          fits that they had bargained for with the decedent. The
          defendants also argue that the plaintiff is ‘‘upending’’
          the decedent’s estate plan. Moreover, the defendants
          argue that they are entitled to equitable relief on the
          basis of what they consider to be ‘‘uncontradicted’’ evi-
          dence that the decedent had made various promises
          and assurances to them over the years with respect to
          their right to remain in the subject premises following
          his death. In furtherance of these arguments, however,
          the defendants merely rely on testimony that the court
          found not to be credible. Specifically, the defendants
          attempted to demonstrate through testimonial evidence
          that the decedent had promised them that they could
          remain in the subject premises beyond his death, that
          they had relied on such representations to their detri-
          ment, and that D’Andrea accepted substandard pay in
          exchange for the right to remain at the subject premises
          beyond the lifetime of the decedent. The court did not
          find this testimony credible.
             The defendants do not explicitly suggest that this
          court should second-guess the trial court’s credibility
          determinations, and it is not our role to do so. Indeed,
          we could only set aside the court’s factual findings
          flowing from those determinations upon a showing that
          they are clearly erroneous, and the defendants have
          not met that burden. See Haynes Construction Co. v.
          Cascella & Son Construction, Inc., supra, 36 Conn. App.
          32. Moreover, for reasons already discussed in this opin-
          ion, the will and the trust support a finding that the
          decedent had not intended to benefit the defendants
          following his death with continued occupancy of the
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 23

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text